Looking for a portrait lens

limbik

Hello everyone, originally I was thinking about picking up the Tamron 17-50mm, however I think I may just go with a 10-22 for my wide angle and something else for my wide aperture needs.

I had the 50mm 1.4, and while it is a great lens, I found it to be too long on a 20/30D. I would like to find a quality, affordable, lens wider than 50mm, zoom or prime, that is well suited to portraits.

Any suggestions?

BenA2

Sigma 30mm f/1.4
Wow, I'm surprised you find the 50 f/1.4 too long on the 20D for portraits. I feel like it's somewhere between perfect to too short on a 1.6 crop.

Anyway, that being the case, I highly recommend the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. I think you can find it now for less than US$400. It tends to be tack sharp in the center and a bit soft in the corners, but that's perfect for portraits. I personally don't use it for formal portraits, more for shooting low-light snapshots, like this...


Canon 350d w/ Sigma 30mm f/1.4 at ISO 1600, 1/80s, f/1.4

I love this lens' build quality and color. I really don't think Canon has anything to offer to beat it at this price point and quality.

Ben

limbik

No kidding? I thought about it, read some iffy reviews, but its looking much better than I expected.
When I say portraits, most of mine don't happen in a studio environmment and I usually have less space behind me than I would like.

BenA2

iffy reviews

limbik wrote:

No kidding? I thought about it, read some iffy reviews, but its looking much better than I expected.
When I say portraits, most of mine don't happen in a studio environmment and I usually have less space behind me than I would like.

The two biggest complaints in the reviews I've read are poor AF and corner softness.

Early models did apparently have an AF problem. But, this was quickly corrected by Sigma. If you buy a used one, you might need to pay attention to this. With a little research, I think you can find the serial number at which they changed over. Even if you get an old one with the AF problem, I think people have had luck sending them in for a repair at no charge. I bought mine new and had no problem with AF (other than focus is always tricky with fast lenses like this, just like the 50 f/1.4).

The corner softness issue is well documented, and quite obvious in Sigma's own MTF charts. I haven't found this to be an issue AT ALL for my style of shooting. Like I said, I'm usually shooting snapshots with it and the corners are almost always OOF anyway. The key is, the center is sharp, sharp, sharp.

Ben

Bob Bell

Traditionally protraits are shoot between 50 and 135mm. So you can get that out of zoom. If money is tight get the Tamron 28-75. If you have case get the 24-70 (24-105 looks interesting, I just don't know about it but there are a few owners here). I really don't shoot portraits at fast apertures much. usually F4 or F5.6. So if you don't need thin DoF a 2.8 will work.

wxwax

Shooting wide tends to distort features. Is this the effect you're looking for?

limbik

Bob Bell wrote:

Traditionally protraits are shoot between 50 and 135mm. So you can get that out of zoom. If money is tight get the Tamron 28-75. If you have case get the 24-70 (24-105 looks interesting, I just don't know about it but there are a few owners here). I really don't shoot portraits at fast apertures much. usually F4 or F5.6. So if you don't need thin DoF a 2.8 will work.

Thanks bob, I have the 85mm 1.8 and it is great when I have room to work.
I have had the 28-75 in the past and it was not bad, but I would love the 24-70. I don't have the cash for it though, so I am looking into other options. A 2.8 zoom is a definate possibility though, and one of the reasons I was considering the Tamron 17-50 was that the 28-75 is such a great lens for the price. As for primes, I've debated the Canon 28mm 1.8, and now this Sigma. 30-35mm (48-56mm) seem to be about the length I'm looking for.

Pezpix

I dont know how interested you would be in a super-wide angle lens, but the Canon 17-40 f/4L is an ok choice if budget is a concern. I believe with a bit of shopping that you could find it for sub $600. I cant say its the sharpest lens in my arsenal but it is good in medium light and is very light compared to the 24-70. Just a thought anyway...

Manfr3d

wxwax wrote:

Shooting wide tends to distort features. Is this the effect you're looking for?

Hehe! Nothing beats a 8mm Fisheye for portraits shots

limbik

Manfr3d wrote:

Hehe! Nothing beats a 8mm Fisheye for portraits shots

For sure.

Pez, I just sold my 17-40, it just didn't cut it as I never seem to have that medium light, but I also wanted more separation from the background than I could get from the f4.

Pezpix

limbik wrote:

For sure.

Pez, I just sold my 17-40, it just didn't cut it as I never seem to have that medium light, but I also wanted more separation from the background than I could get from the f4.

Yeah, that is a crutch when dealing with the 17-40. Honestly, the only real time I use it is between that 17-23 mark since it does get softer the longer your zoom goes.

A dream list for portrait lenses for me would start and end with primes. My wishlist would go like this...

Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L USM
Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM
Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM
Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM
Canon EF 135mm f/2L USM

Ok, enough dreaming. That scenario would easily bankrupt all but the best of us heh, but imagine the fun!

Ok, back to your dilemma. I would still aim for that 24-70 if it as all possible since the bokah, sharpness and versatility is so well spent on it. Otherwise, might I suggest the Tamron SP AF28-75MM F/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) since it has a third of the budget, but is a very good portrait lens in medium light.

limbik

Pezpix wrote:

Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM
Canon EF 135mm f/2L USM

Yea, drool... That would be some fun all right.
I'm thinking I might pick up the Tamron 17-50mm for now, and hopefully replace it with the 10-22 and 24-70 later on.

Steve Cavigliano

I agree with Sid. Too wide and too close and your get distorted facial features. Like my avatar as a matter of fact.... I just love the Tammy 28-75 for portraits and group shots. Nice color and cotrast and good AF except at lighting extremes. As with most portrait lenses, it works best if you use a fill unless you have super lighting.

Here's an example of a 28mm shot.
http://freezeframephotography.smugmug.com/photos/71360119-O.jpg

Another @ 65mm using the internal flash for a fill
http://freezeframephotography.smugmug.com/photos/49376084-O.jpg

Steve

Phil U.

BenA2 wrote:

Anyway, that being the case, I highly recommend the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. I think you can find it now for less than US$400. It tends to be tack sharp in the center and a bit soft in the corners, but that's perfect for portraits. I personally don't use it for formal portraits, more for shooting low-light snapshots, like this...Ben

Yea, I'm looking forward to the 30mm f/1.4 to come out in the 4/3rds mount. With the x2 crop factor it'll be a 60mm equiv and won't be using as much of the corners. Will be great for the low light situations or times when I want the shallow DOF. Keep hearing good things about this lens. They announced that they would be slapping the 4/3rds mount on it - just wish they'd do it already.

limbik

Well, I wound up going with the 28-75mm Tamron since B&H just happened to have a used one for $260. Now I really want to hunt down a deal on a 10-22.